Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

urgent- need home security recommendations

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by StarTrekDoc View Post

    Please don't misrepresent this conversation.

    I challenged the premise of 100s and 1000s riskand 400k saved lives and asked for that proof of The raw data.

    I even agree to the risks and even cited direct statistical data of that at a reasonable level without the need for hyperbole.

    You misrepresent the subject matter and that's an issue which I find interesting where you think someone is on one side of the conversation when I am not.l while calling it confirmation bias.

    OP , I do hope you and wife get security you are familiar with. Be it a camera, dog or gun. And don't install a pool or moat.
    Glad to see the time tested moats finally were introduced. Moats filled with alligators, sharks and piranhas maybe? What could go wrong?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Tim View Post
      Glad to see the time tested moats finally were introduced. Moats filled with alligators, sharks and piranhas maybe? What could go wrong?
      With friggin’ laser beams attached to their heads….

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Jaqen Haghar MD View Post

        With friggin’ laser beams attached to their heads….
        Yes - laser beams

        Comment


        • Maybe my doggos are unusual. They have never attacked but they sure will act like you’re about to be made into mincemeat until I shake hands, hug, etc. Lottie (younger one) follows Beau’s lead and he doesn’t like anyone I don’t like. Regardless, no system is foolproof but I am very comfortable and believe I am protected with this one. Click image for larger version

Name:	image.jpg
Views:	99
Size:	3.71 MB
ID:	366720 Lottie at this moment.
          Our passion is protecting clients and others from predatory and ignorant advisors. Fox & Co CPAs, Fox & Co Wealth Mgmt. 270-247-6087

          Comment


          • Originally posted by StarTrekDoc View Post

            Doesn't matter the subject matter. If you say honor the credentials --honor them. You can't pick and choose people with bonafide credentials unless you yourself fall into your own accusation -- confirmation bias.

            Did find the source here Freakeconomics is in op ed citing their numbers. I didn't go into their raw data as I haven't bought their book but see the math they used.

            "In 1997 alone (the last year for which data are available), 742 children under the age of 10 drowned in the United States last year alone. Approximately 550 of those drownings -- about 75 percent of the total -- occurred in residential swimming pools. According to the most recent statistics, there are about six million residential pools, meaning that one young child drowns annually for every 11,000 pools.

            About 175 children under the age of 10 died in 1998 as a result of guns. About two-thirds of those deaths were homicides. There are an estimated 200 million guns in the United States. Doing the math, there is roughly one child killed by guns for every one million guns."

            Using 200million guns as the denominator; not households.

            Denominator is off -- their real world data.

            We own 5 guns in an offsite storage -- you're going to count that for accidental shooting at home?
            Same for gun clubs Count all those guns for accidental home incidents?

            Reconcile that please.
            I still don’t understand why you looped poor Fauci into this. Very random.

            Regarding the numbers above, yes I would have preferred that they use households instead of total guns. I think methodologically that would have been better, and my guess is that those data weren’t available to them.

            For example, there are about 125 million households in the US, about half of which have guns on-site. Gallup began tracking this in 2007 (well after their book was published). Perhaps others did it earlier.

            So that would be an approximate reduction of their original denominator by a factor of 3.

            So a child is ~33x more likely to accidentally die at a home as the result of a pool than a firearm. Better?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by bovie View Post

              I still don’t understand why you looped poor Fauci into this. Very random.

              Regarding the numbers above, yes I would have preferred that they use households instead of total guns. I think methodologically that would have been better, and my guess is that those data weren’t available to them.

              For example, there are about 125 million households in the US, about half of which have guns on-site. Gallup began tracking this in 2007 (well after their book was published). Perhaps others did it earlier.

              So that would be an approximate reduction of their original denominator by a factor of 3.

              So a child is ~33x more likely to accidentally die at a home as the result of a pool than a firearm. Better?
              Nope -- not x33. You're piecemealing things now. Run the updated numbers. Show your math and sources.

              ---I did do the math with households with guns 42% = 51M and used updated data sources for both guns and pool accidental deaths -- you claimed this was again seeking confirmation bias -- it's just updated data using comparable denominator: households. (post #77)​


              You were the one who posed the contention that credentials matter in defense of data, hence cannot be disregarded (your post #79).

              --I simply countered with a highly credential person whom I know you absolutely disregard out of hand reflecting your assertion of confirmation bias. Credentials alone do not confirm truth.


              I've accepted that ratio; you dismissed it, dug heels in and spit out accusations of confirmation bias and refusal of acceptance of updated data.

              Risk ratio: 3 to 1. Pools more than guns.

              Defend your claim. 100s, 1000s factor dangerous. Defend 33x.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by StarTrekDoc View Post

                Nope -- not x33. You're piecemealing things now. Run the updated numbers. Show your math and sources.

                ---I did do the math with households with guns 42% = 51M and used updated data sources for both guns and pool accidental deaths -- you claimed this was again seeking confirmation bias -- it's just updated data using comparable denominator: households. (post #77)​


                You were the one who posed the contention that credentials matter in defense of data, hence cannot be disregarded (your post #79).

                --I simply countered with a highly credential person whom I know you absolutely disregard out of hand reflecting your assertion of confirmation bias. Credentials alone do not confirm truth.


                I've accepted that ratio; you dismissed it, dug heels in and spit out accusations of confirmation bias and refusal of acceptance of updated data.

                Risk ratio: 3 to 1. Pools more than guns.

                Defend your claim. 100s, 1000s factor dangerous. Defend 33x.


                3540 child and teen gun deaths per year (average from 2016-2020), with 5% of those accidental. So that's 177 accidental child gun deaths, which is an overestimate as this includes teenagers (not really what we're talking about) and also includes deaths outside the home (again, not what we're talking about). But we'll use it anyway, while recognizing the actual number we want is lower.

                122 million households in the US, of which 45% have guns on-site. So that's 55 million households with guns.

                = 177 accidental child gun deaths out of 55 million households with guns, so that's 1 : 311,000.

                389 pool/spa-related fatal drownings per year (average from 2017-2019) for children under 15yo. 73% of those occurred at home. All of which are likely accidental. So that's 284 accidental child drowning deaths.

                10.7 million pools in the US, of which 97% are residential. So that's 10.4 million households with pools.

                = 284 accidental child drowning deaths out of 10.4 million households with pools, so that's 1 : 37,000.

                That gives us a final factor of 8.5x more likely for a child to accidentally die at home from a pool than a gun.

                Better?

                You also may notice that the number of pools has nearly doubled, while home drownings have halved, since the original work was published. While the percentage of households having a gun has remained constant and the number of households has increased by only 15%.

                So yes, at the time of publication, 33x was pretty much accurate if using households with a gun instead of total guns. Are you arguing that they somehow misrepresented the data? Does the conclusion change if it's 33x or 100x?

                Hopefully that helps you get out of the trees, so you can see the forest again.

                The whole point of this, if you recall, was to show that a child is significantly more likely to accidentally die at home by pool than by gun. While the author's original work from several decades ago used (now) old numbers and total guns, instead of the methodologically superior (in my opinion) households with guns, their conclusion is just as valid whether the factor is 100x, 33x, 10x, or 2x.

                So, yes, I think you--as someone who stores guns offsite to (apparently?) try to make your home safer, while still having a pool--do have a definite bias, as evidenced by the ridiculous time you have spent, and now made me spend, to demonstrate to you that something presented as a fact (i.e., pools are far more dangerous than guns for children) by a reputable source, was, in fact, a fact. Both then, at the time of publication, and now.

                Are you really going to tell me that you wouldn't have had the same reaction and gone through this same silly exercise if I had originally said that your pool was 10x more likely to accidentally kill a child than your gun?

                Comment


                • lies, damned lies, and statistics

                  in an N of 1 none of it matters

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by jacoavlu View Post
                    lies, damned lies, and statistics

                    in an N of 1 none of it matters
                    Children are 33x more likely to recognize the name "Mark Twain" than the name "Samuel Clemens."

                    I've exhausted my literature search and reference quotas for the day, so don't ask!

                    Comment


                    • Simply calling out the hyperbole folk use and then throw accusations of bias and stubborn and then run away. Shining a light on that.

                      Individually, we minimized risk during young children years. No pool. No guns. When they were proven water safe and older we introduced that risk. That's our N based on our comfort level of knowing the base pertinent data.

                      Your point to use hang your argument on 20+ year data and dig in on those while dismissing the question as bias and digging in on the matter.

                      Who dug in? Who dismissed out of hand?

                      Updated facts matter. Not hyperbole . We have enough of that already.

                      Enjoy the weekend, we certainly are. Wolverines win. Warriors win. Holiday festival yesterday and chilling now. Click image for larger version

Name:	20221204_124549.jpg
Views:	65
Size:	3.92 MB
ID:	366831



                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by StarTrekDoc View Post
                        Simply calling out the hyperbole folk use and then throw accusations of bias and stubborn and then run away. Shining a light on that.

                        Individually, we minimized risk during young children years. No pool. No guns. When they were proven water safe and older we introduced that risk. That's our N based on our comfort level of knowing the base pertinent data.

                        Your point to use hang your argument on 20+ year data and dig in on those while dismissing the question as bias and digging in on the matter.

                        Who dug in? Who dismissed out of hand?

                        Updated facts matter. Not hyperbole . We have enough of that already.

                        Enjoy the weekend, we certainly are. Wolverines win. Warriors win. Holiday festival yesterday and chilling now.


                        It's not hyperbole if it's accurate. Which it was at the time of publication.

                        Can quibble about methods, of course, and up-to-date numbers are always good, but quoting the original statistic is hardly hyperbole and the effort to re-do the entire analysis is hardly worth it when there is no reason to think that there have been material changes in the underlying assumptions, or that the overall conclusion would be any different.

                        Ain't nobody got time for that. Well, at least not most people.

                        Would much rather enjoy the day off watching football or lounging around the pool.

                        But now we both know the exact, updated ratio of accidental child deaths by residential pool versus firearm. Yay.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by bovie View Post

                          Children are 33x more likely to recognize the name "Mark Twain" than the name "Samuel Clemens."

                          I've exhausted my literature search and reference quotas for the day, so don't ask!
                          Case closed. But not the thread.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by bovie View Post
                            Can quibble about methods, of course, and up-to-date numbers are always good, but quoting the original statistic is hardly hyperbole and the effort to re-do the entire analysis is hardly worth it when there is no reason to think that there have been material changes in the underlying assumptions, or that the overall conclusion would be any different.

                            But now we both know the exact, updated ratio of accidental child deaths by residential pool versus firearm. Yay.
                            - ah....that's what is being in academia is really about -- it is important.

                            Hyperbole yes - even then in 2001. They used a denominator that should not have been used. That denominator cut down their claim by a factor of 10. That's not insignificant. Not then. Not now. That was my point at the very beginning. There's a very large difference risk factor difference between x3-10 and 100s or 1000s. You stood by it as fact and dug in and cried 'comfimation bias!' when denominator was called into question.

                            My point of all this:
                            People usually can make reasonable decisions without sensationalizing the topic if you allow the conversation to happen.

                            Comment


                            • Did not have good experience with Eufy , would not recommend it .

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by StarTrekDoc View Post

                                - ah....that's what is being in academia is really about -- it is important.

                                Hyperbole yes - even then in 2001. They used a denominator that should not have been used. That denominator cut down their claim by a factor of 10. That's not insignificant. Not then. Not now. That was my point at the very beginning. There's a very large difference risk factor difference between x3-10 and 100s or 1000s. You stood by it as fact and dug in and cried 'comfimation bias!' when denominator was called into question.

                                My point of all this:
                                People usually can make reasonable decisions without sensationalizing the topic if you allow the conversation to happen.
                                Hyperbole is an exaggeration. They didn't exaggerate. They just used an inferior component to calculate their statistic.

                                Again, they had no dog in the fight. No agenda, other than to demonstrate that people are bad at assessing risk.

                                Saying that it's 25x makes the same point for them as saying it's 100x. They're not making a comment about guns or pools specifically. It's about risk assessment.

                                Not to readjudicate this whole thing, but as a fellow academic, I'm obliged to point out, again, that changing the denominator from 200 million total guns to 50 million households with guns on-site (in ~2005) does not change the outcome by a factor of 10. It changes it by a factor of 4.

                                Claiming that is, in fact, hyperbole. Exaggeration for effect.

                                With a strong pour of irony mixed in to boot, which I find rather entertaining.

                                Pot, kettle, and all that...

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X